News Post

MLB 09: The Show Simulates the 2009 Season

10:23 AM - April 3, 2009 by RaychelSnr

MLB 09: The Show is marketed as the "most realistic baseball game" available today, but how realistic is it when compared to the real MLB season? While there is no way of knowing that until the real season is over, I used the most current rosters that are available online and simulated the MLB season on default settings to see what "the most realistic game" has to say about the '09 season, which just so happens to start this Sunday,

So, here is a quick rundown of what The Show predicts will happen during the '09 season.

Read More - MLB 09: The Show Simulates the 2009 Season

Game: MLB '09: The ShowReader Score: 9/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS2 / PS3 / PSPVotes for game: 90 - View All

MLB '09: The Show Videos

Member Comments

# 21 MIKEY93 @ 04/04/09 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sim God


	LETS GO METS!!!

LET'S GO METS!!! starting my PSP season soon

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigogouhou


	Good sim, but with the money the Mets pay Santana there's no chance they make Mike Pelfrey the Game 7 starter.

unless Santana pitched in Game 6

# 22 Kalon @ 04/04/09 04:06 AM

I did one sim earlier today and I still see higher SB numbers than normal. Everything else seems believeable, but Ichiro did have 23 HR's!

Edit: Slightly higher. The SB leader for 08 had 68. I shut up now. For the last 8 years the SB leaders have been between 50-70 SBs.

# 23 Imnus @ 04/04/09 09:36 AM

I really don't see the Yankees being third after finally getting good pitching. And the Red Sox winning the WS without Manny.

# 24 jconpoet @ 04/04/09 12:38 PM

Coverboy team advantage happens all the time until the season gets going and ratings get adjusted... especially the minor league guys that make it to the show who aren't included in the game yet ala Jay Bruce and Daniel Murphy, etc. but we'll see cause Jerry Manuel will work the rotation situation out and I think after what happened against the Cardinals in 06 I don't forsee a stinker coming from Mike Pelfrey in game 7 if he does pitch it

# 25 Braves Fan @ 04/04/09 01:18 PM

Braves continue to get no respect, not even in MLB the Show.

# 26 Braves Fan @ 04/04/09 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerseySuave4


	cuz they suck, and their ace is really a #2 or #3 on a good pitching staff.

Yeah ok, we'll see.

That's why they play the games.

Our starting rotation might be the best in the division. Yeah we don't match up well with the Aces the Mets and Phillies have but our depth is much better.

And Lowe is not a #3, he's a very good #2, borderline #1.

# 27 KidFromNY @ 04/04/09 02:21 PM

Lowe is a 2 or 3, and not a borderline #1, because he turns 36 on June 1st this year, he hasn't had consistent MLB success for a while, and he's moving from a weak hitting NL West to a much better hitting National League East division. Heck, he may even be a 4.

# 28 funky_chicken @ 04/04/09 02:31 PM

The Cubs can't even make it to the World Series in the videogame world either. Those are the lovable losers for you.

# 29 Braves Fan @ 04/04/09 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KidFromNY


	Lowe is a 2 or 3, and not a borderline #1, because he turns 36 on June 1st this year, he hasn't had consistent MLB success for a while, and he's moving from a weak hitting NL West to a much better hitting National League East division. Heck, he may even be a 4.

LOL, that's the most absurd post ever.

He post 200 innings every year with an ERA in the mid 3's.

# 30 teebee @ 04/04/09 03:04 PM

Pads winning the west, go MLB the Show!

# 31 KidFromNY @ 04/04/09 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braves Fan


	LOL, that's the most absurd post ever. He post 200 innings every year with an ERA in the mid 3's.

Hey, don't jump to conclusions like that. There is some heavy competition out there!

He does post 200 innings every year with an ERA in the mid 3's, but his WHIP was significantly better than it was in the previous seasons. And he is turning 36 this June-- and he is moving from the weaker hitting NL West to the better offensive NL East. I'd expect at least a somewhat large dropoff.

# 32 raidersbball20 @ 04/05/09 09:17 PM

I really hope the Red Sox don't win it

# 33 karavalvin @ 04/06/09 03:08 AM

As a Mets fan, I'll just be happy as long as the goofballs don't choke again.

# 34 k_bassuka @ 04/06/09 09:08 AM

Most realistic game ever, yet Pitchers can't win RoY or MVP awards its lame this is a great game but definitely the most annoying game ever.

# 35 masterkembo @ 04/06/09 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k_bassuka


	Most realistic game ever, yet Pitchers can't win RoY or MVP awards its lame this is a great game but definitely the most annoying game ever.

I would like to point out that the last time a pitcher won the MVP was in 1992 (Eckersley). In fact, in the last 39 years, a total of 5 pitchers have one the MVP (6.4%), so it doesn't seem untirely unrealistic (or lame) that pitchers don't win the MVP award.

# 36 k_bassuka @ 04/06/09 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by masterkembo


	I would like to point out that the last time a pitcher won the MVP was in 1992 (Eckersley). In fact, in the last 39 years, a total of 5 pitchers have one the MVP (6.4%), so it doesn't seem untirely unrealistic (or lame) that pitchers don't win the MVP award.

It’s still a possibility and if a pitcher goes out there and win 24+ games in a year with a low ERA will win it unless someone has a B.Bonds type of year and break the single season HR record. It’s true that pitchers rarely win it but at least have the opportunity to do so, unlike in the most realistic game ever. So what’s the problem with

Quit making excuses for a broken part of the game.

# 37 BigWilly @ 04/06/09 12:33 PM

Ok, so pitchers win the MVP 6.4% of the time, and yet based on one simmed season where a pitcher doesn't win it, you make the leap to say that the game (or even a part of it) is broken? Very logical argument.

# 38 masterkembo @ 04/06/09 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k_bassuka


	It’s still a possibility and if a pitcher goes out there and win 24+ games in a year with a low ERA will win it unless someone has a B.Bonds type of year and break the single season HR record. It’s true that pitchers rarely win it but at least have the opportunity to do so, unlike in the most realistic game ever. So what’s the problem with Quit making excuses for a broken part of the game.

2002: Randy Johnson, 24 W, 5L, 2.32ERA, 260 Innings, 334, SO.

That seems to meet your MVP requirements for a pitcher.

MPV: Barry Bonds with 46 Homeruns and 110RBIs which certainly isn't a 'homerun record breaking' season.

1996: John Smoltz, 24 W, 8L, 2.94ERA, 253.2 Innings, 276 SO.

MVP: Ken Camaniti - 40 Homeruns, 130 RBIs (neither recrod breaking; in fact neither even lead the league)

1999: Pedro Martinez, 23W, 4L, 2.07ERA, 213.1 Innings, 313 SO.

MVP: Ivan Rodriguez, 35 Homeruns, 113 RBI (neither league leading)

All three of those pitchers meet your MVP criteria, yet none of them won the MVP, and the guys that did win certainly did not have record breaking stats.

So, is it broken when a pitcher doesn't win MVP in the game?? Absolutely not! Considering a pitcher hasn't won the MVP in 16 seasons IRL, and there has been pitchers that have had big seasons since then, and they haven't won the MVP, I think it's fair that pitchers haven't won the MVP in your season(s).

Edit: Pedro was the only of those 3 guys that was even in the top 3 in voting. Randy Johnson finished 7th in voting in his 24 win season.

# 39 choadler @ 04/06/09 03:12 PM

Wow, I guess that put that argument to rest about pitchers and MVP...Nice post masterkembo.

Funny how people's perceptions and what they feel is realistic and not realistic is so far off.

# 40 k_bassuka @ 04/06/09 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by masterkembo


	2002: Randy Johnson, 24 W, 5L, 2.32ERA, 260 Innings, 334, SO. That seems to meet your MVP requirements for a pitcher. MPV: Barry Bonds with 46 Homeruns and 110RBIs which certainly isn't a 'homerun record breaking' season. 1996: John Smoltz, 24 W, 8L, 2.94ERA, 253.2 Innings, 276 SO. MVP: Ken Camaniti - 40 Homeruns, 130 RBIs (neither recrod breaking; in fact neither even lead the league) 1999: Pedro Martinez, 23W, 4L, 2.07ERA, 213.1 Innings, 313 SO. MVP: Ivan Rodriguez, 35 Homeruns, 113 RBI (neither league leading) All three of those pitchers meet your MVP criteria, yet none of them won the MVP, and the guys that did win certainly did not have record breaking stats. So, is it broken when a pitcher doesn't win MVP in the game?? Absolutely not! Considering a pitcher hasn't won the MVP in 16 seasons IRL, and there has been pitchers that have had big seasons since then, and they haven't won the MVP, I think it's fair that pitchers haven't won the MVP in your season(s). Edit: Pedro was the only of those 3 guys that was even in the top 3 in voting. Randy Johnson finished 7th in voting in his 24 win season.

1996: Smoltz put up great stats playing for a great team maybe the best in the majors; they had the best pitching staff by far.

Caminiti took an average at best team to the playoffs, and put up great numbers
.326 BA 40 HR 79 XBH 110 R 130 RBI 11 SB

1999: Pedro should’ve won the award if you ask me, the only reason he didn’t is because some writers didn’t like him and some refuse to give their MVP vote to a pitcher, Pudge didn’t help by having one of the better seasons by a catcher offensively (rare by a catcher at the time) and defensively. If this would’ve happened after a Blo Soxs WS he would’ve won it.

2002: AZ had 2 pitchers that won 20+ games and they also had a great team and it showed by winning the WS.

Bonds continue his dominance, after hitting 73 the year prior he was on track to break that record, until that coach decided it was best to walk him even with bases loaded than to pitch to him. That’s why he didn’t hit more HR and still had one of the better seasons by a hitter.
.370 BA 46 HR 79 XBH 117 R 110 RBI 198 BB

He took a bad team and had them competing with the more talented AZ. He clearly was more important to his team than RJ. And voters believed that if they had pitched to him he would’ve beaten the 73 mark.

But you made my point for me those pitchers were in the MVP discussion those years and that doesn’t happen in this game, you can win 25 heck even 40 games playing for the Pirates and have no shot at winning the MVP, while on real life it would be a no brainer.

P.S. this is baseball, almost anything it’s possible too bad that the developers didn’t get the memo.

« Previous 123 Next »

More Links

MLB 09: The Show Simulates the 2009 Season